IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

R.G. Flath Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1984-10-12 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2003-04 Soo Indians NAHL 54 15 9 24 0.444 0.1633 0.1627 0.4691 0.4674
2004-05 Soo Indians NAHL 55 15 17 32 0.582 0.2138 0.2024 0.6141 0.5814
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2006-07 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 NCHA SO 27 19 14 33 1.222
2005-06 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 NCHA FR 25 18 13 31 1.240
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.24
2005-06 · Milwaukee School of Engineering
+676.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#26677
Forward overall
#771
Forward born in 1984
#2220
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emil Romig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Denver (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Grant Newcomer
Concordia · 2021-22
0.518 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Wood
Endicott · 2014-15
0.875 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jake Bergstrom
Hamline · 2024-25
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.